Dad´s posts are a perfect example for the narrative imperative: everything works exactly as it is needed for the story to work.
Thank you, true stories usually have that quality. I like that.
But that is not the way reality works. In a story, a statement is enough, but in reality an explanation is needed. How does it work? What is affected by it? How does it affect?
In reality, where the stste of a universe is different, one does not show how the different state works, by looking at the other state. All we really can do is look at the present, and near past, and deal with how that is. When it comes to assuming the past and future are the same, that is absolute religion, not in any way science.
Years ago, when I was still an active Pen&Paper Roleplayer, there was a hot debate on how invisibility worked. Why did this debate happen?
It happened because of the difference between story and reality - in this case, an invented reality.
The other state is invisible to us now, the spiritual, because, as I say, we are now seperated. That does not mean there is no spiritual, as most men on earth have always known, and know as we speak!
In the story it is enough to state "The Hero puts on his Magic Ring of Invisibility, and vanishes in front of the perplexed monster." But in this (invented) reality, it became necessary to ask: "And what now?" What about monsters that can see into infrared? Still invisible? Sound? Touch? What about them? And what about the small problem of physics that tells us that "vision" depends on reflected rays of light? HOW THE HECK DOES AN INVISBLE HERO SEE?
If the hero is a spirit, he sees from something other than a physical body, with it's eyes. (Unless that spirit is possessing the body!)
The debate was never solved. It could never been solved, for there was no way to find out how invisibility works - BECAUSE IT DOES NOT WORK. Not in reality, which is the basis for all of our invented realities.
That is because you were looking for same state invisibility of physical bodies, and that doesn't seem to work that well, that I am aware, as of yet, with science!
The only solution possible was to revert back to the narrative imperative. "It works! He is invisible and can see. End of story. No questions, no explanations!"
When you deal in such fantasy, it is a story only, when you deal in a real past and real future, and real spiritual, it is a known quantity.
Another example: A great scene from "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers": Frodo is taken as a captive by Faramir of Gondor to be presented to his father the Steward. At Osgiliath, they are ambushed by a flying Nazgul and Frodo almost succumbs to the Power of the Ring. In crazed frenzy he draws his sword on his trusted companion Sam, and almost kills him before comming to his senses.
Now wait a moment? HE DRAWS HIS SWORD?? What military commander of any worth would leave an unknown and potentially higly dangerous CAPTIVE with his sword. No one. But it made a great scene in the movie, and so we ignore it.
Thanks for the impromtu movie review. Maybe it'll make a snip in some 'blunders' special some day. Another one I like there was how they said most things quite normally. But when they said, 'Mordor' it was with a roll of the tongue. 'Moorrrrdoooor'.
You can find examples like that in almost every story. We ignore them, because we want to focus on the story. This is no flaw, no problem, because we KNOW that these are "only" stories. They are not meant to present reality, but focus on different aspects of humanity.
Right, so, back on topic, then. You cannot impose the present material state of reality, on heaven, the spirit world, eternity, the future, or the past. You just don't have the science to begin to try that puppy.
But if a story is meant to be presented as reality, it needs to be able to stand up to these questions. Using the narrative imperative here is not allowed.
Right, so how does your same past story do that? It doesn't. It even flies in the face of the known afterlife, and spiritual!
)
